Tag Archives: HB2134

This past Friday, the State Legislature voted to end the 2014 Session a week early. This action resulted in a final resolution on the passage of HB2134 being out of reach. With its updated language being provided by the conference committee just two days before the vote end the session, the bill never had time to gain the proper votes for final passage.

This was precisely the result I feared would happen if the bill went to a conference committee. No ballot access bill has made it passed any conference committee in Oklahoma. Had the House just approved the Senate version of the bill, we would be in a far better place today. I had explained that to Rep Echols, but he felt that the possibility of the bill being challenged on Single Subject grounds to be too great.

For now, Oklahoma is right back where it has been for many many years, with the worst ballot access laws in the nation. If nothing changes in the next two years, we will likely be in exactly the same place we were two years ago, as the only state in the US with two candidates for President on the ballot.

We will be working closely with the Legislature and Rep Echols over the next year to get ballot access reform passed.

The Conference Committee assigned to HB2134 has submitted its recommended version of HB2134, the ballot access bill. This bill had gone to a conference committee after the Senate greatly amended the bill and the House rejected those amendments. The main problem Rep. Echols and other House members had was the potential for a single subject rule based lawsuit over the Senate version.

In this new version of HB2134, the Conference Committee recommends that the party qualification petition language be stripped from the bill and leaves in tact most of the changes to the Presidential petitions for Independent and unqualified party candidates. However, the bill goes a further than the Senate version by further reducing the signature requirements to 1.5% rather than the Senate’s 2.5%. It also leaves in tact the current deadlines rather than the Senate’s reduced deadlines.

Overall, this would be a positive change. Instead of the little over 40,000 signatures needed under current law to get an Independent presidential candidate on the ballot, a little over 20,000 would be all that is needed. According to Ballot Access News, this removes Oklahoma from the worst presidential ballot access space it currently holds. With this change, it is far more likely that Oklahoma would have more than 2 candidates on the 2016 ballot even if no new parties gain recognition in the state.

As of now, the proposal does not appear to have the approval of the Senate side of the Conference Committee. That side is comprised of Senator Marlatt and a few others. With only one week left in the Legislative Session, it is imperative that we convince Senator Marlatt and the rest of the Conference Committee to act on this proposal.

The Senate has now appointed its conference committee members for HB2134. On the House side, the conference committee will be made up of the House Rules Committee, consisting of Representatives Russ, Cooksey, Dorman, Floyd, Quinn, Watson and Wright. The Senate side will consist of Senators Marlatt, Griffin, Holt, Ford, Bass, McAffrey. All voted in favor of HB2134 so that there is little fear that they will turn down whatever compromise comes down the pipe.

While ballot access bills have had a poor track record for conference committees in previous sessions, we have a much higher hope for a positive resolution this year. Representative Echols is very much in favor of getting a good bill pushed through this session and he has high confidence that Senator Marlatt will work closely with him in finding a resolution to the differences in the different versions of the bill. While I have some ideas of what the final bill will look like, I am waiting for an official copy of the bill before making any statements in that regards. I will say that it will likely not be 100% what we want from the bill.

We urge you, if your Representative or Senator is a member of either of this conference committee, to please call them and ask them to find a compromise and pass it through. We will be reaching out to all members of this Conference Committee as well.

We are still trying to find more information, but it has now come to our attention that the State House has rejected the amendments to HB2134 added by the Senate. Doing so, the bill has now been sent to a conference committee for further review.

Unfortunately, ballot access reform bills have a pretty terrible history when it comes to conference committees. In 2009, HB1072 was passed by both the Senate and the House, but with differing language on the number of signatures. That bill went to a conference committee where it languished and died with no action. In 2011, HB1058 passed the Senate and House with differing signature language. While the house made its recommendations, the Senate never looked at the bill and it died.

We are looking for comments about why the Senate amendments were rejected as we felt that nothing in those amendments were worth letting the bill die. We will provide further updates as we learn more.

Oklahoma is one more step closer to joining the first world when it comes to ballot access laws. The Oklahoma Senate has finally passed HB2134, the ballot access bill that reduced the number of signatures needed to form a new party from 5% of the last general election to 2.5%. However, the Senate couldn’t resist making major modifications to the bill. Fortunately, they are mostly positive. Yet, with these amendments in place, the bill must go back to the House for a confirmation vote.

The bill passed the Senate with a very narrow vote of 28-16. The Senators voting against the bill were 15 Republicans, Allen, Brecheen, Newberry, Standridge, Anderson, Brown, Schulz, Sykes, David, Shortey, and Treat , and one Democrat, Ballenger. We are sending emails to each of these Senators asking them why they voted against the bill.

It adds a provision allowing political parties to voluntarily terminate their status as recognized parties. This may have been introduced in response to the Americans Elect Party as it had requested removal in many other states. Currently, the only way to lose recognized statues is to not field a candidate for the top ballot line, President or Governor, or to fail to reach the 10% vote test.

It adds a new deadline for recognized parties to certify the names of the candidates for President and Vice President. This deadline is 70 days before the general election. The current 90 day deadline for certified Electors is still in place. This gives some leeway for parties to hold Presidential primaries after holding elections for Electors.

It reduces the number of signatures for uncommitted and Independent Presidential candidate petitions from the current 3% of the last Presidential election to 2.5% of the same. It is not much of a change but does bring it inline with the party petition process.

It reduces the amount of time to gather signatures for Presidential petitions. The current deadline is July 15 and the amendment changes that to July 1. The names of Presidential Electors are due by August 15 rather than September 1.

It adds a process that disqualifies Presidential Electors if they fail to vote for the candidate they were pledged to vote for.

All in all, the deadline changes and the faithless elector addition are the only negatives about the amendment. The rest of the amendments are a great improvement over the current process. While this still places Oklahoma at the wrong end of the spectrum for ballot access, we are at least not so far at the bottom. As it currently stands, we would still be one of the toughest states to form a new party and get an Independent Presidential Candidate on the ballot.

There were quite a few questions posed about the bill. Senator Marlatt did a great job at describing why these changes are needed. He described how Oklahoma is one of the worst states in the nation for forming a new party and that we have not had more than two candidates for President for 3 elections. He also talked about how other states in our region have far more lax requirements for forming a new party. Senator Constance Johnson asked a number of questions about the faithless elector provision, but that was the bulk of the questioning.

With the amendments filed and passed, the bill must now go back to the House. We are going to be getting in touch with Rep. Echols to find out what he thinks of the amendments and what his plans are for the bill. If we can get this bill passed as is, it would be an incredible moment for us.

Support for ballot access reform is growing in Oklahoma. For many years, we have fought to reduce the burden posed to those who wish to form new parties in Oklahoma. As of today, Oklahoma’s top two newspapers have expressed their support for easing Oklahoma’s worst in the nation ballot access laws.

Currently, parties seeking recognition have to obtain the signatures equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the most recent general election. That currently works out to 66,744 petition signatures.

House Bill 2134 would cut that requirement in half.

Why do they support this measure? Because they recognize that the rising generation is moving further away from the current duopoly parties.

Political thinking is changing. The next generation of voters is not nearly as loyal to the traditional two-party system as their grandparents were. Independent voters are the fastest growing segment of the state voting pool. Many young voters want boutique parties molded to their specific political thinking rather than big-tent parties based on broad principles and old loyalties.

However, the Tulsa World does express some interest in keeping some burden in place. They feel that too low a barrier could lead to a glut of “marginal, schismatic groups”, but that should not stand in the way of reasonable accommodations.

We support lowering the standard for party recognition. We don’t want the number so low that it will produce a flowering of marginal, schismatic groups with no hope of ever electing a candidate, but reasonable accommodations of new modes of political thought could engage new voters and force the two big parties to make sure they are addressing issues of importance to all Oklahomans.

We are not clear exactly where the Tulsa World feels that line should be drawn. Even if HB2134 becomes law, Oklahoma would still have the highest burden in the nation for forming a new party or getting a candidate on the Presidential ballot. No other state has more than a 2% requirement. Additionally, in the decades prior to 1974, where the signature burden was 5,000 signatures, Oklahoma never saw more than 5 candidates for Governor or President. So even something easier than 2.5% would theoretically meet the Tulsa World requirements.

Colorado’s ballot access law may be too lax, but Oklahoma’s law is at the other end of the spectrum, making it exceedingly difficult for third parties to put a candidate before voters. This year, just as in 2008 and 2004, Oklahomans had only two options for president, the Democrat or the Republican. Twelve years ago, Pat Buchanan managed to get on the ballot here as an independent.

During an appearance in Oklahoma City two years ago, consumer advocate Ralph Nader said our state’s ballot access rules are among the nation’s toughest. “A competitive democracy with multiple candidates, multiple ideas, multiple backgrounds and multiple agendas is going to bring more people out to vote and we’re going to have a better political process,” he said.

Donna Bebo, who ran as a Democrat for the 4th Congressional District seat, put it this way: “Candidates should not win simply because of who they keep off the ballot. They should win on their own merit.” She has a point.

In conservative Oklahoma, Republicans enjoy firm and growing control of the Legislature. They have nothing to fear from providing a voice to others, by lowering some of the significant hurdles now in place for third-party candidates trying to get on our ballot.

Now that Oklahoma’s two largest news organizations have put their editorial muscle behind our efforts, will the State Legislature follow through and actually pass HB2134? Right now, the ball is in the Senate’s court and unfortunately, they have made moves to stall the bill as much as possible. Not only did they wait until the last day it could be heard in committee to pass it to the floor, but they also had the title and enacting clause stricken, a move that ensures it is forced to a conference committee if both are not restored prior to a floor vote. If the bill does get sent to a conference committee it is highly likely that it will die there just as previous ballot access reform bills have done.

We are working hard to ensure that the title and enacting clause are restored prior to a Senate vote, but have not received responses to any of our efforts to reach out to Senator Marlatt.

In a brief series of questions, Senator Connie Johnson asked what the intent of the legislation was, to which Senator Marlatt responded that it was to make it easier to form a new political party. In a follow up question, Sen. Connie Johnson asked Oklahoma Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax which parties have tried to form.

In response to this question Ziriax stated that no parties had filed intent to form this year. This is not surprising as the petition requirement would be based on the 2012 Presidential election which forces a higher number of needed signatures. He followed that by stating that in 2012 two parties filed intent to form. The first was the Americans Elect party which gathered enough valid signatures but did not field any candidates. The other was the Libertarian Party which did not gain enough signatures to form. Ziriax expressed that had HB2134 been law at that time, he believed they could have qualified with the signatures they did submit.

It is unclear why Senator Rob Johnson voted against the bill. Our best guess is that since he is the author of SB668, which kept the 5% requirement but removed the presidential elections from the calculation, he felt that his bill should be the one to become law. This is mere speculation as we have not received a response from him as of yet.

Unfortunately for us, the bill had both its title and enacting clause stricken before the vote. This move ensures that if the title and enacting clause is not restored before a Senate vote, the bill will be forced to go to a conference committee. This is unfortunate as the conference committee is where several previous bills had died. It is our hope that this will not be the case. We ask that you contact your Senator and asked them to not just vote for HB2134 but also ask them to support restoring its title and enacting clause.

As we move into the second half of the 2014 Legislative Session, we are still watching the Legislature carefully. Of all the bills we were watching over the last two years, only three remain active. So let’s take a moment to see what the state of those three bills are.

The only bill to have any kind of hearing so far this year is HB2134. This bill, when it was introduced, would have returned the signature requirement to its pre-1974 requirement of 5,000. It passed the House Rules Committee in 2013 and sat there until the last day the House could hear its own bills in 2014. At that time, it was amended to 2.5% of the last general election. The bill then passed the House on a vote of 74 to 11. It is now awaiting a Senate Rules Committee hearing. The Senate has until April 10 to hear House bills in committee and until April 24 to hear it on the floor.

The other ballot access reform bill that is still alive is SB668. This bill passed the Senate on a unanimous vote in 2013. This bill is the weaker of the two reform bills. It merely removes the Presidential elections from the signature formula. It is in the House awaiting a Rules Committee hearing. It has the same deadlines as HB2134 but on the House side.

Of these two bills, we greatly prefer that HB2134 pass. But at this point, it is difficult to say if either will get a hearing. Our greatest fear is that both chambers will not move on either bill because they have both passed one of their own already. We have reached out to both the Senate Author of HB2134 and the House author of SB668 to find out what their next moves are. Neither has responded to our requests.

The final bill on our watch list is SB76. This bill is one that we hope the House does not consider at all. It would double the filing fees to run for office. This bill will have the effect of reducing the number of people who would run for office. In Oklahoma, where far less than 50% of legislative seats make it to the November ballot, this would harm Oklahoma more than help. This bill has passed solely on partisan lines. No Democrats have voted in favor of it. It is in the House waiting a hearing by the Appropriations and Budget committee. We have reached out to the House author to find out if he has plans to push it through, but he has not responded.

So as we enter the last two months of the legislative session, we will be keeping you up to date on any movement made on these three bills.

HB2134 was the preferred ballot access bill this year. It would have returned Oklahoma to its pre-1974 requirement of 5,000 signatures to form a new party. After what seemed like an eternity, HB2134 finally came to a vote late on the last day it could be heard.

Representative Jon Echols pushed the bill on the floor and introduced an amendment to it. It is unclear exactly why he amended the bill as he has not responded to that inquiry just yet. This amendment changed the signature requirement to 2.5% of the last general election. While not the 5,000 signatures we wanted. it is greatly improved from the current situation.

When it came to a vote, the bill passed on a vote of 74 to 11. All eleven Representatives voting against it are Republicans. They are as follows: Representatives Biggs, Jackson, Nollan, Schwartz, Cockroft, Johnson, O’Donnell, Trebilcock, Derby, McCall and Sanders. If any of these Representatives are your District Rep, you may want to have words with them. We have sent emails to them to ask them why they voted against it and are waiting for their replies.

At this point, the bill goes to the Senate for its vote. Last year, the Senate passed SB668. That bill simply removed the Presidential elections from the calculation. So it is imperative that we push the Senate to hear this bill. Senator Marlatt is the principal Senate Author of HB2134 and will be the one who will be pushing it to be heard.

Yesterday, House Republicans met and elected a new House Speaker to replace outgoing Rep. TW Shannon who stepped down from the position to pursue a US Senate seat. This is great news for proponents of Ballot Access Reform for two reasons.

The first reason is that Rep Shannon was a key figure in blocking ballot access reform from a vote in 2013. We were never clear on his reasons but it doesn’t matter much at this point. He has stepped down as Speaker as he seeks the Republican nomination for the US Senate.

The second reason is that his new replacement is none other than HB2134’s author Representative Jeff Hickman. HB2134 is the bill that reduces the signatures required to form a new party from te current 5% requirement to a flat 5,000.

This is certainly a unique opportunity for ballot access reform in Oklahoma. I am unaware of any time in the past where the Speaker of the House was also a principal author of a ballot access reform bill. We certainly hope that Rep. Hickman will help insure that real reform advances through the House this year.

We ask all supporters of ballot access reform to send words of encouragement to the new Speaker and ask that HB2134 be heard on the floor.

Post navigation

The Case For Ballot Access Reform

Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform is once again calling on state lawmakers to demonstrate their faith in democracy and hand the keys to the electoral process back over to the voting public. To this end, we have written and published a brief putting forth the evidence in support of Ballot Access Reform.
Read and Share the Press Release and Ballot Access Brief.